Subject:
|
Re: Methodology: Reserve, Controlled Reserve, or No Reserve?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.auction
|
Date:
|
Sat, 24 Apr 1999 05:21:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
723 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.auction, cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com (Mike Stanley) writes:
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > > 4) No reserves whatsoever. If you insist on getting at least price X,
> > > then they must choose X as the minimum opening bid.
> > 4.
>
> Yeah, I gotta agree. I understand how the same item can reach 2x the
> reserve if the bidding starts low and then go unsold if the minimum is
> the high amount the seller wants, which kinda sucks, but I still don't
> like reserves, either as a buyer or a seller.
>
> As both a buyer and a seller I think reserves usually just have the
> potential to waste peoples' time.
> [...]
And the potential to make bidders *EXTREMELY* violently angry.
Imagine if you lost out on something because your high bid of $110 was $15
less than the secret reserve price, and you held off on bidding on the same
item in another auction because it had gotten up to $145 and this one was a
more attractive deal. Now this one closes and you find out that you've lost
out, and the other one has already closed and you lost out on that one too,
when you maybe could've jumped in and had it for $155 or something. Maybe
the other auction even had a reserve price too and maybe it was lower than
this one. You never know. Except you know that you're wicked p155ed off.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
